The Good That Won’t Come Out
Most of the coverage of today’s digital television (DTV) transition has focused on the transition-related hassles. But it’s worth joining Farhad Manjoo in recognizing that whatever problems do or do not emerge with the immediate transition, the consequences of this move will be very good:
For all these problems, there are a couple of amazing advantages to digital TV, benefits that you hardly hear about in the apocalyptic coverage of the transition. The first one: The switch is going to free up a vast share of public airwaves that can be used for much better things than TV. Last year, the government auctioned off the “spectrum” that TV stations will give up once they stop broadcasting analog signals. Verizon and AT&T won the radio space, though Google, in its first big foray into lobbying, managed to convince the Federal Communications Commission to require that the telecom companies keep the new space “open”—meaning that they can’t restrict what software or hardware customers use on the airwaves. As a result of the switch, we’ll soon get a much better wireless Internet—wider coverage, faster downloads, and with fewer restrictions. That’s much more worthwhile than a snowy local channel showing reruns of Golden Girls.
The extra spectrum ending up in the hands of AT&T and Verizon wasn’t totally ideal, as I think a lot of people were hoping that it would end up elsewhere and strengthen competition among the major wireless service providers. But despite its problems, the US wireless market isn’t totally uncompetitive either, so as capabilities expand, so should the quality of the offerings. In recent years, the United States has started to fall behind the technological curve in terms of Internet speed and putting this spectrum to high-value uses will be an important part of picking the pace up again.
36 Responses to “The Good That Won’t Come Out”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 12th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
You now have Rilo Kiley in my head.
June 12th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Noooooo!!!! I want my Golden Girls!!!!!
June 12th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
You might want to read Doc Searls for some interesting technical information on what this will mean to anyone without satellite or cable. Summary: over the air reception will suck for an awful lot of people.
June 12th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
I’m with Tim, seriously. Why did he have to trash the Golden Girls? The Golden Girls are fucking amazing. Bea Arthur and Estelle Getty, R.I.P.
June 12th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
1) Well, I’m fucking PISSED, Matthew. I went to Walmart this evening to buy the DTV converter with those government rebates you and Podesta finally got sent to me. Clerk went to ring up the sale with the $40 Rebate Debit card and –ERROR– card EXPIRED TWO DAYS AGO!!!
2) Fix this or Obama is a fucking One-Term President. I guarantee it.
You sold off MY motherfucking airwaves to massive campaign donors AT&T + Verizon, I don’t get shit except for two $40 rebate cards and NOW those don’t work. Plus my time has been wasted.
June 12th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
POst 5 is a true story, by the way.
Go ahead, assholes. Laugh.
But just remember: It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
June 12th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Example: That exemption that Obama wants to the new Whistleblowers Protection Act — i.e., that Intelligence Personnel NOT be protected — is looky kinda shaky, if you get my drift.
Be a shame if something was to whisper in some Members of Congresses’ ears and let them know how they have been conned on some matters. What Al Haig referred to during Watergate as “a sinister force”.
June 12th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Fix this or Obama is a fucking One-Term President. I guarantee it
I’d say odds are that a significant proportion of those presently relying on over-the-air broadcasts are likely to either be dead or to have slipped into dementia by 2012.
June 12th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Everyone knows their planning to use the spectrum for tracking us once RF chips become mandatory in all newborn American babies. Faster downloads? Wider coverage? More like the United States of Surveillance! Get a clue sheeple!
June 12th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
My new Samsung lcd looks just the same to me. With the Charter box hooked up I get only half the channels I had before the box.
And none of them are in “HD”, just same old tv picture. What a fuxking rip off. Before I had 4 or 5 HD channels, now none.
Guess I will disconnect the Charter cable box, go back to what I had before.
Charter cable really sucks.
June 12th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
I requested the coupons three times. Never got one.
AT&T and Verizon happen to land the wireless commons. Another example of hegemony. Watch health care deform. The insiders, aka major campaign donors, have the government doing their bidding.
June 12th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
This is like Project Mayhem soap: we’re have having our own fat asses sold back to us. The fact that we allowed it to happen doesn’t, necessarily, mean we deserve it. Let us remember all the electromagnetic spectrum, nominally, belongs to the public; to us. It should be a free commons; regulated, but open, none the less. The revenue generated by selling it to incumbent monopolies is a pittance, when compared to the public good that would be created by making it a free, but regulated, public space. Free as it freedom, some sort of “tax” would probably still be necessary; possibly similar to the BBC license fees in Britain.
June 12th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Dude, the government already has all the spectrum they need to do that if they wanted to. Freeing up more spectrum is totally unrelated. If you want to bitch about something, try the corporate/lemon socialism we’re seeing: government institutions favoring they’re incumbent cronies at the expense of the public. I’m all for civil libertarianism, but this “New World Order” shit sounds even nuttier when it has no context. Or were you just trolling? It’s hard to tell anymore; if so TOUCH`E, you got me.
June 12th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Dream on. We’ve gone from getting 6 channels (PBS, CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox and a spanish) to only consistently getting in 2 (PBS and spanish). Whereas we could always jiggle the antenna to get a watchable signal for all the channels in analog, with digital it is all or nothing.
Digital TV may be a boon for urban core regions, but is a complete bust for those who do not…and we hardly live in the sticks, nestled 8 miles between Durham and Chapel Hill, NC. My dad reports the same, living in a small town 40 miles from Columbus, OH and sporting a rooftop antenna.
I guess the upside is we do get 3 crystal clear PBS channels.
June 12th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
“Everyone knows their planning to use the spectrum for tracking us once RF chips become mandatory in all newborn American babies.”
Wow, I didn’t know they would let Von Brunn have a computer in jail, but I guess they have.
June 12th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Really? I live in Alamance county NC, which is the “sticks”, and I get at least the same # of channels, only clearer. I haven’t even gotten a proper roof antenna yet. So, I think you may have some antenna placement or other technical issues. My issue, on the other hand, is what we’re doing with the spectrum. Speaking of public commons: Hooray for PBS!
June 12th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Where is my Uncle Miltie? All I see are a series of tubes leading to something called “2 girls 1 cup”.
June 12th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
In some cases your old roof antenna will not pick up digital signals. You’ll need to buy a new one.
June 12th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
From the Maryland suburbs – DTV BLOWS!!!!!
Even with a fancy antennae, it gives less channels,and shitty shitty shitty shitty shitty reception.
Try watching the NBA Finals and, just as Kobe drives the lane, everything freezes up into square pixels for five seconds, and then suddenly the action is on the other end of the floor and you hear the announcer saying “that was one amazing move by Kobe”. Imagine that happening 20-30 times during the game and that is what DTV give you. I can only conclude that DTV is a scam to get us dinosaurs to finally buy cable.
Did I mention the reception is SHITTY?
June 12th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
My car doesn’t crap fertilizer. This “type” hurts my eyes. I want nice hand-illuminated manuscripts. Cloth wears out too fast. I wants skins to wear.
June 12th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
I submitted a comment earlier, but don’t see so am posting again. Sorry if this turns out to be a double post.
I thought the switch to DTV was to free up bandwidth for emergency responders, but this post makes it sound like it is really for broadband companies. Sheesh.
Anyway, I get OK reception with DTV and it has actually given me more channels than before. In case anyone’s interested, I wrote a DTV antenna guide.
Good luck with the conversion.
June 12th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
I forgot to mention, why pay for cable or satellite tv when you can get so many channels free over-the-air?
June 12th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Yeah, the whole thing is good. What a farce.
Before transition, here 6 miles south of downtown Charlotte NC, I could get 11 TV channels.
After transition, 3.
It’s not like I’m out in the boonies, I’m right in the middle of Charlotte, NC.
I broke down and bought satellite TV at a discount. I could care less about most of what’s on the boob tube but I don’t want to live without I do watch.
Its a scam, and all the poor people who can’t afford the monthly fees for cable or satellite are screwed.
And the campaign on TV about DTV boxes was ridiculous. It wasn’t just DTV boxes needed, it was better antennas. It wasn’t until after the transition date was delayed that I heard anything about that on TV, though I found it online. But not at the government sponsored websites, or the TV stations.
June 12th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Except for military hardware, a category in which the United States ranks number one, two and three, worldwide, the US is generally is not ranked in the top twenty in any significant category -unless, of course, it is a negative category, like infant mortality or life expectancy.
So how do you think we rank, worldwide, in the percentage of television viewers who are not forced to constantly jiggle rabbit ears? I would like to think a nation obsessed with television would crack the top ten in THAT category.
June 12th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Sorry, luddites, but this spectrum was WAY too valuable to be used for one-way transmissions to mostly fixed locations. In fact, I would have preferred making the TV broadcasters bid for the spectrum they retained as well.
June 12th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
I live 30 miles from the nearest city and I get more and clearer channels now. I really dig having 3 PBS channels. I did have to add a $25 amplifier to the antenna for reliable reception, especially after adding a second receiver. I’m very pleased with DTV.
June 12th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
DTM – as I said, you might consider the way digital broadcasts work (see the link I posted earlier) – and understand that it’s not just luddites who have questions
June 13th, 2009 at 12:07 am
DTM – as I said, you might consider the way digital broadcasts work (see the link I posted earlier) – and understand that it’s not just luddites who have questions
I understand perfectly well how digital broadcast TV works, and I also understand the implications of moving broadcast TV to higher frequencies. My broader point is not that digital broadcast TV is necessarily going to be better for all or even most people than analog broadcast TV, but rather that using spectrum for broadcast TV at all is a poor use of a scarce resource. To that extent, the current digital broadcast TV regime is superior to the old analog broadcast TV regime simply because it takes up less spectrum. Indeed, just moving a lot of it off the more valuable lower frequency spectrum is a benefit.
And as I read your article, he is ultimately making a similar point. The very idea of wireless broadcast TV is obsolete, and the sooner we realize that the better.
June 13th, 2009 at 1:48 am
The very idea of wireless broadcast TV is obsolete
If you live someplace where there’s cable – there are people who live places where there is no cable. It also assumes you do all your television watching in one place. Satellite would do but satellite doesn’t carry the local channels.
I’m sure there were people around who suggested that AM radio was obsolete once they heard Major Armstrong’s improvement. We still have AM radio and it serves a purpose. I can’t imagine a city that needs 67 television stations or one that could support that many but we could one day.
June 13th, 2009 at 8:12 am
You’re not wrong, but you’re not right either. There is an intrinsic value to having a few channels of “live” broadcasting easily accessible Over-The-Air; particularly for truly live events which will be widely viewed, i.e. elections, the Superbowl, etc. If only because it would save bandwidth by eliminating redundancy. It’s just that freely available wireless would be even more useful; certainly more useful than the 8-9 different networks broadcasting now. Broadcasting incumbencies should obviously be deprecated in favor of public net access, but that doesn’t mean they should be eliminated entirely.
June 13th, 2009 at 9:14 am
The US Government’s Continuity of Government Plan for maintaining control of the country after a major nuclear war still depends heavily upon the special huge “clear channel” AM Stations with their long reach.
Look at who forms the backbone of the national Emergency Alert System — at WHO are the Primary Entry Points for insertion of the President’s messages/directives:
http://gallery.bostonradio.org/2005-06/boston/100-03040-med.html
June 13th, 2009 at 9:16 am
See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Alert_System#Technical_concept
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Weather_Emergency_Operations_Center
June 13th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Update: Now that the switch has occurred, I am somewhat less than thrilled. In the DC market, I had been watching ABC 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, as well as CBS 9.1 and 9.2 for months. Then after thinking I was prepared, they apparently changed without warning their DTV transmission from UHF to VHF. What was the point of broadcasting in digital for months just to change it at the last minute? Judging by complaints on their websites, many people lost their ability to pick up the digital signals.
At least I can pick up ABC primetime on Baltimore channel 2.1, but I will miss local DC news unless they revert back to their previous digital broadcasting channel.
DTM, while you can criticize luddites, I believe people should be able to continue watching tv without subscribing to expensive cable or satellite services. In my opinion, TV broadcasts are more important than everyone calling and twittering nonsense constantly.
June 13th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
I just find it funny that soome people will get up in arms about this giveaway (don’t take away my teeevveee!!!!) but don’t get up in arms about the giveaways to Wall St. and the fact we are in the process of being screwed on health care with another band-aid compromise measure that will end in a another crisis in thirty years.
June 14th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Re Kropotkin at 34: “I just find it funny that soome people will get up in arms about this giveaway (don’t take away my teeevveee!!!!)”
—————–
Second Law of American Politics: Don’t fuck with Americans’ TV sets.
Augustus Caesar would not have lasted a day if he had shut down the Circus Maximus.
June 17th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
I think it’s easy for well-off, urban, educated people to belittle the interests of the kind of people who rely on broadcast TV in receiving it. I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing, though I do see it in the comments. But I think we should ask “for whom?” instead of just focusing on “Goods” when we examine questions like this.
Yes, I am more interested in loading Think Progress quickly on wireless than in watching snowy Golden Girls reruns, but I can imagine that if my life circumstances were very different I might feel differently. In general, class snobbery among liberals is not only offensive but a huge trap, as the politics of the last 30 years have helped show. We advocate for policies that support the needs of the less-well-off – there’s no need to be snotty about their tastes, difficulties, or desires on the side.